Search Options

Judgment Search By Title

Displaying 8381-8400 of 8403 results.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Zone Vs. M/S. International Sanitary Engineering Co., Dacca, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


M/S. E. P. Lamps Ltd. Dacca Vs. Pakistan and others, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Abdul Jalil Sikdar and others Vs. Khorshed Ali Dhaka and others, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Dildar Ahmed Choudhury Vs. Farroque Ahmed Chowdhury and another, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Ashraf Mia and another Vs. Bangladesh, 1974, 3 CLC (AD)


Shajahan Mia Vs. State and others, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Official Receiver of the High Court of Dacca and Official liquidator of the Dass Bank Ltd Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Podder and others, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)

Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)

Section 73 has provided a special period of limitation notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Limitation Act, 1908 or in any other law for the time being in force. It has thereby extended the period of limitation as provided either in Article 57 or Article 85 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act. Now the question is whether the operation of the Limitation Act was halted or stopped so far as the present case is concerned. The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 73 in our view appear to be so wide that they bring in their ambit any banking company in respect of which a petition for the winding up has been presented before the commencement of this Ordinance. This Ordinance came into force on 7th June, 1962. ……..(11)

The legislature enacted the Banking Companies Ordinance providing special period of limitation to protect the claim of the bona fide creditors of the Banking Companies in liquidation about which winding up proceeding is in process or about which an application for winding up was presented before the commencement of the Ordinance. It is thus obvious that operation of the period of limitation was stopped both prospectively and retrospectively by this special enactment and as much the present suit is not barred by limitation………………………(13) 


Mt. Jahari Ara Begum Vs. A.L. Md. Shamsul Hoque, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Akram Hossain and others Vs. Abdul Karim Mondal and others, 1974, 3 CLC (AD)


Akram Hossain and others Vs. Abdul Karim Mondal and others, 1974, 3 CLC (AD)


Moyna Mia and others Vs. The State, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Kafezuddin Miah Vs. Election Tribunal-cum Munsif and others, 1974, 3 CLC (AD)


Nur Hossain Vs. The Election Tribunal (Munsif), Cox's Bazar Dist. Chittagong and others, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Jadav Chandra Mali Vs. Abdul Khaleque and others, 1975, 4 CLC (AD)


Anwara Begum Chowdhurani Vs. Nur Jahan Begum and others, 1974, 3 CLC (AD)

Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885; section 26F

East Bengal State Acquisition And Tenancy Act, 1950; section 3

The Raiyati Interests was a Rent-Receiving Interest within the Meaning of the Act—

With the auction-purchase of the raiyati interest by the immediate landlord the under-raiyats ceased to be under-raiyats and were automatically raised to the status of raiyats—

It is an undenying fact that the raiyati interests in the present case, in view of the under raiyat there under, was a rent-receiving interest within the meaning of the Act. The rent-receiving interests of the raiyat, as already stated, vested in the Government. The Government became the proprietor by virtue of acquisition of the said interests. Thereafter the rent-receiving raiyat was divested of his right and consequently disappeared from the field. Naturally the under-raiyat was automatically upgraded as a raiyat under the Government, there being no intermediate interest in between………… (13)

With reference to the provisions of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act as well as the relevant provisions of the B.T. Act, the Court inclined to hold that the view expressed in the case of Mubasher Ali that after the Notification issued under section 3 of the Act, the status of the under-raiyat became upgraded to that of raiyat……………………(14) 


Ram Kishore Sen and others Vs. Union of India & others, 1965, CLC (AD)


Selim Mollah (Md.) Vs. Bangladesh and Others, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)


FAS Finance and Investment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Large Tax Payers Unit (LTU) Dhaka and Others, 2014, 43 CLC (HCD)


Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission and Others, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)


Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone-6, Dhaka Vs. Transfin TradinS Ltd 52, MotiJheel C/A, Dhaka, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)

Income Tax Ordinance (xxxvi of 1984); Sections 29 & 29(1) clause (iii)

Whose Income is Exempted from Payment of Tax—

The proviso excluded the benefit from the assessee for deduction of interest paid in respect of the three categories of uses of the borrowed capital by transferring any part of it to an entity whose income is exempted from payment of tax. Only in such uses, the assessee is not entitled to allowance of deduction of interest paid on the borrowed capital. This being the apparent meaning of the proviso to Clause-(iii) of sub-section (1) of section 29, this proviso does not have any application at all….... (15)

So long as the assessee is borrowing capital for the purpose of its business and paying interest thereon, he is entitled to get allowance of deduction for the interest paid by him—

The basic requirement of law is that so long as the assessee is borrowing capital for the purpose of its business and paying interest thereon, he is entitled to get allowance of deduction for the interest paid by him. The only exception is in respect of the categories of uses in favour of an entity whose income is exempted from payment of tax. In giving inter­pretation to a relevant provision, the proviso, if any thereto, should also be interpreted. At least it should be said that the proviso is not relevant for deciding the case concerned....... (16)